"The great purveyors of Truth will not be found in the newspapers or academic hierarchy, but among those who devote their time to the betterment of the nation by constant investigation and the process of elimination, until all that is left is the bare reality." D Cohen
The modern means of revolution only needs to be through knowledge. Repeating the same basic truths is like hammering in a nail until the information becomes set. When enough people do the revolution is here.

Wednesday, 30 April 2014

Obama's last speech quoted increases in every imaginable weather disaster from global warming, even though the UN state the frequency is unlikely to increase, only the intensity of events. After a 2C rise mainly, which we'll never live to see. But his claims of each increase, easily checked in moments but clearly not by him or anyone after, can show he lied. Again. That is because Barack Obama is a paid liar, paid by his slave masters Soros, Rockefeller, and according to his latest plans to fund the first official geoengineering project, Bill Gates. So the second question is if this information is so easily discovered, how did he both manage to make such clearly dishonest claims, and was never once called on them in any media, not even to my knowledge Alex Jones who really ought to have won the race to expose one of the worst examples of abuse of authority since Stalin. Some have only been available for continents, others the entire world, but the lack of any increase (the tornados total have, but look at the strength in red which does the actual damage). However, the separate major tornado graph shows the specific picture. Thanks to Anthony Watts for saving many of these for us all to bust the liars at the top.

This is a famous situation, probably investigated since the time of Greek philosophers. What if you are in government, and are in a position to sacrifice people right now for a possible profit in the future? What should they do?

In the 40s Churchill and others knew about the concentration camps, but made the decision if they tried to liberate them then Hitler would discover they'd broken his code and would weaken the war effort, so they allowed millions to die in case they saved even more in the future. The formula is fairly simple, as if you know exactly what will happen by your current actions you must then decide if certain deaths or losses are worth the chance of saving possibly more in the future, also bearing in mind it is impossible to see the future outside a linear system.

Run things ahead to the 1990s, with the Kyoto Protocol. This and Agenda 21 have led to many thousands of deaths, from starvation in the third world where land grabs for biofuels have put many farmers out of business and caused whole villages to starve, and poor people dying of cold every winter, 3,000 in Britain and many more in hospital from raising energy bills. All this is supposed to prevent possible global warming in around 2100 (when we'll never be here to know anyway), as well as spending trillions worldwide which could have been spent on saving lives and related project such as providing clean water in the third world and clearing the swamps of malaria, but has now been diverted to wind turbines (which have standbys working in parallel permanently so add no new power themselves as each watt is cancelled by the wasted one provided by the standby and vice versa) and subsidies for similar projects worldwide despite the temperature having barely risen after a 50% rise in CO2.

People do not either learn from history, study simple philosophy, or if they do, do not care about its messages as their own psychopathic aims are stronger than the knowledge of benefitting the most people overall using the principle of utilitarianism. Where you know the consequences in a linear system then sacrifices can be made, and some laws recognise this, so various times plane crash survivors have killed and eaten others as otherwise none may survive and this way it guaranteed the most people would last as long as possible in case they were found in the future, rather than all dying sooner if they did not. That is one of the only examples where such an action could be justified as you know by halving the numbers and eating the remainder the total lifespan will be increased. Otherwise you are almost certainly colluding in murder and other atrocities.

Tuesday, 22 April 2014

Global warming relies on two things, which the media never mention. All we get from them is the catalyst, CO2, which alone is unlikely ever to add more than 1C as that is its total absorption spectrum which needs to double until it becomes saturated per 1C rise. It has already risen 50% since 1850 and the (already rising) temperature has gone up 0.8C. In fact the real greenhouse gas is water, in the form of humidity/vapour in the atmosphere. That is the positive feedback required from oceanic evaporation remaining in the atmosphere, but can either form that (warming) or clouds (cooling). The satellites (in the present) as opposed to the models (in the future) have shown the water vapour to be falling while the cloud cover rises, explaining totally the lack of consequent warming and reasons for it since CO2 has continued to rise.

As the media fail to mention the vital second element required for more than a single degree of harmless warming, plus the fact we already know it is not just absent but replaced by cooling cloud cover then it explains pretty fully that temperatures have risen about 80% less than the UN forecast in the 1990s and growing further and further away from their sharply rising estimates every year. There is no known or expected delay mechanism whereby anything would change, but the oceans evaporate and we can only observe the results after the event. In fact the layers of atmosphere have different effects for both types of water vapour, some warm and some cool, and as a result such phenomena are impossible to model at all so can't be known until after the event. As we now do.

Tuesday, 8 April 2014

"Political correctness cannot face truth: It rejects what is, simply because what it does not suit what the politically correct thinking ought to be"

George MacDonald Fraser

Pretty much sums it up perfectly for me. You don't want anyone to be more intelligent than any other, less so different races, or accept cultures commit certain crimes more than others, large groups of immigrants do not blend with native populations in general and women are different from men. Just because you close your eyes and try and silence anyone like me who refuses to play the game can never change nature for what it is. That is a process of personal evolution and maturity these people will probably never reach or complete. They would rather pretend the world was perfect if only everyone would stop pointing out it was not. They are stuck at a very early stage of development and currently in charge of Western policy. A form of mental slavery going against everything enlightened society spent thousands of years developing, and want to shut it down and replace it with one size and colour fits all. This can and will never happen, however many good people are silenced, convicted, imprisoned and killed for saying so. You cannot change the world by closing your eyes and everyone else's mouths, as such you are being more oppressive than any other individual ever could simply for speaking what they believe was the truth.

Having explained the entire motivation behind the movement, it now makes perfect sense. While mature (including children, their maturity of clear perception can be trained out of them by society to regress them) people see what is, not by being biased or prejudiced, but simple common experience, the PC lot don't accept or believe it. How on earth could people be stuck as they are, no person being able to rise above their native IQ (as genetic imprints are now coming out for more and more traits, including intelligence, it will become impossible to pretend otherwise soon), and presumably certain characteristics being inborn to certain races no differently to any within your own family which is a microcosm of any groups you belong to. I suppose if you come from one of the more successful groups it's easier to accept this, simply as you are at an advantage and recognise positive traits not as present in others, but when a member then feels utmost guilt at how whatever is done no one from other groups will be able to meet the same levels as ones own, and the denial comes in. They then look for every possible social reason, where sociologists can, given sufficient resources, easily trace such failings from say British immigrants to their home countries and hundreds of years previously, failing in certain areas regardless of the social conditions. As Mensa say, you can always make someone's IQ lower with poor conditions, but never higher than it actually is.

Science comes to our aid time and time again, tests using controls can for example show many similar traits in identical twins adopted to separate families, and criminology seems to find certain crimes are indeed as much culturally related than down to the individuals. There is really nothing offensive with recognising who does what, the best and worst things, and it is physically impossible to condemn a single person to a lifetime stuck in their place like the Indian caste system, as in the west then it's free for everyone to rise out of their backgrounds to any level they are capable of. I'd also say most people within any racial or religious group knows these traits far better than anyone else, and when you ask them directly, instead of the toxic practice of the progressive left of speaking for them, they will also condemn the worst elements of their own, and immigration in general, just like the dreadful white British people do the left love to hate.

Speaking out with honesty is a gift and a duty, and anyone who hides from it deserves all they get from the oppressed minority of plain talkers who know what they see and are not scared to tell you. It has led to comprehensive schools, forcing academic but poor children out of the best possible education, uncontrolled immigration, as whoever comes in number wise, including a million or more of the same race as us here in Britain, critics are labelled 'racist' (apparently forgetting many critics are ethnic minorities themselves who also have to wait longer for appointments and get stuck queuing for transport like everyone else), overlooks organised crime when it is committed by foreign gangs (Rochdale council allowed sexual predation for years rather than upset the local Muslim community, which as well as allowing the crimes to continue for years after they were discovered), which no doubt happened elsewhere for the same reasons as this is standard practice in certain types of local authority, and you end up getting quotas for women and ethnic minorities, forcing genuinely qualified people who had worked for years to qualify out of possible jobs to get someone else in who you believe should be there instead even though the free market does not provide such results.

Denying one person cannot be born more intelligent than another (while insisting everyone is born gay or not) flies in the face of reality and sets an alternative foundation for society based on an imaginary hell, where we are all born the same and determined by our conditions, and any child taken from a family at birth would end up exactly like the other they were adopted by regardless. Of course on the service they will sound the same and share the same culture they grew up in, but they will always remain themselves in that particular style of presentation, and no doubt as they grow up wonder why they are attracted to areas associated with their birth culture they knew nothing about. There's no sociological explanation for this, how could a Jewish baby sent to Nigeria at birth not knowing a thing about their background except they are clearly not black African from birth become attracted to Jewish things for no apparent reason, until eventually they do enough research and find out that is who they are as well? There is absolutely no other explanation for it than science, families are born similar to each other, and when they breed selectively, like all other animals and plants, show more in common with their family group than everyone else. Science since Gregor Mendel knew that, and however much you close your eyes and sing, people from different groups will show more similarities with others within it, not just on the surface from mimicry, but underneath even if they are transported to the Antarctic to live with the polar bears, they will still crave salt beef and latkes even if they don't know what they are if born Jewish. I certainly would have.

Monday, 7 April 2014

I have seen the same mechanism replace religion in atheists who proselytise wherever they can about global warming.

The UN calculate the temperature in 2100 could be anything from a degree to six degrees warmer, anything over two or so may be worse overall than now, while it depends on positive feedback from added CO2 to reach that, which as yet is not present after a 50% rise.

This means they have replaced the belief in heaven and hell after death in another dimension with climate heaven and hell on earth. I don't know about you but I won't be here in 2100. In order to believe the models and lack of positive feedback will suddenly surface from nowhere to cause unknown warming at some date in the distant future, despite none of it actually existing in the present (it has warmed precisely 0.8C in 164 years on a 50% rise on CO2, around half of that attributed to man), you need total faith in scientists, although the temperatures and sea levels are currently below 95% of the models, yet the believers insist, just like the rapture and days of judgement, it is happening now. And worse, their news, unlike that of the Christians, is all bad news. Original sin has been replaced with emitting carbon, and as we all (all reading this anyway) use electricity and heating, WE ARE ALL GUILTY AND MUST REPENT.

Surely any genuine religion, even if based on superstition and nonsense, is superior to that which condemns the entire spectrum of mankind, and does not even offer a means to repent and be saved?

They believe in end times, heaven and hell after we die (from warming), sin (emitting CO2 and the associated lifestyle, much like Sodom and Gomorrah) and repentance (admitting our sin and reducing our carbon footprints).
That is totally based in belief in your god (science) through its prophets (computer models) which predict the future, and even when time after time they get it wrong you still defend them to the end as you have faith.

Saturday, 5 April 2014

To borrow a term from Max Keiser, these are as many examples as I can think of (some mentioned already) where governments impose economic policies which attack the majority of the population directly, some with absolutely no benefit for anyone except sheer sadism against who they believe are a deserving enemy. In no particular order:

1) Income tax above 50%. Repeated economic studies show once you raise taxes above 50% the total gained reduces, so the economy and victims both suffer for absolutely no purpose except gaining votes from like minded Luddites. The reason this can never become profitable is people work less, hide more income and leave the country. That always happens around the world where applied, so all governments know this and do it anyway.

2) University charges. England and Wales never charged for degrees, and offered a universal grant. Now they charge around £27,000 once people earn enough to pay it back, while Scotland manages them free. Has the economy really shrunk so much they can't pay for it through taxes as they always did before or have they simply decided to punish everyone?

3) The UK National Health Service is officially going broke, yet £5-700 billion (source David Buick, BBC Radio London) is being paid on climate projects which create absolutely nothing, often spending around the amount on wind and solar as they give back in their entire lifetimes without adding anything, much like high taxation. Energy prices are beyond the reach of the poor who die of cold every winter, yet money is spent to possibly stop it getting warmer in the distant future while people die as a direct result and the amount is increasing annually under a series of laws. Does any government really want to allow people to die and tens of thousands more become ill (official figures) every year by diverting money to something we don't really know has any effect at all and never can (it would require an identical planet with lower CO2 and the time to find out if it made any difference, which is not possible as we won't be able to live that long).

4) Low interest rates/high house prices. Low interest rates hurt around 70% of the population and costs the economy billions a year in reduced spending, and then raises inflation as people pay more for houses as the monthly mortgage payments go down so the price part goes up to match the difference. No one benefits from that except property developers, who are not 30% of the population either, but far less.

5) High oil prices. OPEC works on the principle a country like Saudi Arabia needs a minimum oil price (around $80) to pay all their country's expenses. Therefore they meet regularly and limit supply to keep it above that point, even though it is pure chance they live there and use it instead of working and taxing people on it like everywhere else has to. That is immoral and ought to be considered an act of war.

--------------------------------------------

I hope this gives a picture of certain economic policies which either benefit the few at the expense of the many, or in the case of high income tax only benefit a left wing party in gaining more votes. It also represents politicians in general, as these policies are widespread, and prove they are looking after themselves in exchange for donations and media support etc, while they use the people like ants farm aphids, they look afer them purely for what they get, and if they stopped getting it would walk away and let us rot.

Wednesday, 2 April 2014

Every now and then supposedly respectable organisations and movements can't manage to hold back their genuine plans and intentions, as unless they really were as beneficent and squeaky clean as they present themselves, whatever is really there must leak out and show, and my point is if that is possible at all, like with a criminal record, that is both what they are capable of, and presents their true nature.

Once the organisation or movement can be found to have acted in a certain way then that is how they are all the way through. If you catch your new girlfriend killing a puppy can that ever be seen as an isolated incident or must it represent the whole? A crude example maybe, but I hope a clear one. So when we joined the same common market which burnt, buried and threw food back into the sea, they'd clearly nailed their colours to the flag and meant the entire basis of their organisation was based on the worst possible primitive and backward principles known to mankind. Like joining a group who offer insurance to keep your buildings intact, offer employment advice based on being part of certain families, and make their opponents disappear, otherwise known as the Mafia, if you know who you are dealing with by a single example of such types of action then you know exactly who you are getting involved with generally.

Just because someone says they're nice and there to help you doesn't make it anything of the sort. The EU have a long record to witness, so when they became the first and so far only organisation to simply remove cash from people's bank accounts not to pay their own personal debts but the organisation's, suddenly the EU morphs into the earlier and better known criminals the Mafia, after all, besides dumping food to keep the prices up, a typical Mafia style trick of commodity price manipulation, but with the added bonus of causing malnutrition, directly swiping money from people's bank accounts sealed the last remaining questions over their integrity. Moving from the EU to political movements in general, what is generally referred to as the 'liberal left' are certainly on the left, but the least liberal movement you'll ever come across. Besides insisting only their opinions are genuine and all others are criminal, such as not believing in global warming or gay marriage, they are among the ranks of the worst racists in current society. No doubts at all. Having spent millions of pounds on the 'BDS movement', designed to highlight every possible connections with Israel (the Jewish state) and not give them any money, they then raised the stakes by coining the phrase 'Hideously white', along with the equally toxic 'Positive discrimination', forcing qualified candidates in the police and boards of directors into other possible employment in favour of women or ethnic minorities. Of course swapping one form of discrimination for another is still discrimination, just replacing the previously favoured group with your lot, again much like family feuds within the Mafia.

And by raising the stakes to calling anything at all hideously white, which actually made the BBC on Radio 4 Media Programme on this afternoon (2/4/2014) pretty much making it official, if you replaced it with black, Chinese or Jewish (maybe not Jewish actually), you'd be lynched. What's the difference? None. Not a thing. They are hideously racist. It matters not a jot who it is directed at, they are racist. Oh, and sexist of course. How else could you close down a company not employing women on the board, and that's the law. Whose exactly? The EU, who else?

Tuesday, 1 April 2014

There is a single principle in place which is so simple and basic once learned it can be applied wherever it is required, and used in turn to undo the mystery created by propaganda merchants such as governments and advertisers, basically everyone who is out there to cheat you by offering you something which is the exact opposite of what it actually is. I will illustrate this using existing points from here you may well be familiar with already, and of course serve the further purpose of repeating the principles till they sink in and become part of you like an old friend. Some are as simple as that, where what they offer is the exact opposite of what it appears once inspected, others are not as clear but just take a little more effort to uncover, and at least realise are probably not anything like they seem on the surface.

This extends a standard principle operated by children, where everything is taken literally, and if not certain many assign their own meaning to it, which can often last throughout their lives subconsciously until recognised and removed. Children tend to be 'joiners', that is those who accept any offer from those they know and trust, which is why many attend demonstrations from anything to global warming, Palestinian rights, and the Occupy movement etc., even though they clearly have no idea what they are demonstrating about, and besides the ones brought up as activists who simply inherit the mindset automatically, many would never want to be connected with as grown adults. That mindset continues to some extent throughout life unless you wake up from it, accepting what those you trust in authority tell you and do not check up or investigate further as they seem exactly what they are, but can be exactly the opposite.

Here are some examples I have mentioned before, but will use to see them in direct operation:

Low interest rates: Yes, how on earth can cheaper borrowing be a bad thing? But interest rates do not operate in isolation. Borrowers are one part of the total linked economy, and as the books always balance at the end (even if some appears initially to be gone) if you have a fixed amount in circulation at any one time then if borrowers are apparently (as it may not really be the case anyhow) paying less, then it is balanced by an equal loss elsewhere. Saving the borrowers a few percent is costing savers that amount directly. It is as simple as that. Now in a profligate economy if far more people are borrowing then it will still help the majority the most, on the surface. But long term no economy can be sustained by borrowing without at least an equal growth in material capital, so it can never last that long before a major crash when borrowing makes up that much of the total. Normally savers outweigh borrowers, certainly in Britain, by about 70/30, so for the 30% who save on their borrowing, 70% lose. Every year it is costing the economy as the money is removed from circulation as instead of being spent in the greater economy goes to pay the banks directly.

Then, the real beneficiaries of low interest rates are the banks, as who else pays base rate? The government. So the government and banks can borrow at base, and the banks always lend for a spread whatever the base rate so makes little difference to them as long as they are turning over business for commission. If base rates are 0.5% and a mortgage is 4% the banks make their 3.5%, if 3% and 7% they still make 7%. So the banks are barely affected as they tend to keep the spread similar as that is the market rate. But when the banks borrow at 0.5%, and either make a massive deal with a tiny profit, if the profit is over 1% then they do very well investing millions, which is never possible at higher base rates as such 'overnighters', as they bet on a currency or commodity moving up or down overnight with huge amounts borrowed with minimal risks, if they made 1% with base rates any higher such a simple means to profit would be impossible. Hence their huge bonuses in the five years base rates have been 0.5%. Is it beginning to make sense now? And the few who profit, the mortgagors? Well they have split into existing owners, who will profit, but remember they are only a part of 30% so not utilitarian, as it does not benefit the majority, all transactions taking place at the time of low rates rather than before they begin are not affected. Why is that? Because estate agents work by how much a buyer can afford a month. If the amount of the mortgage itself goes down then they simply raise the price, as the market relies on what the customer can just manage to afford. So as soon as mortgage rates fall house prices rise directly, as the two are linked and you can't beat the system.

Therefore if you subtract all new buyers (including those selling or first time buyers), you have a small core of people holding a mortgage which has gone down, while their house price goes up, but if rates do not fall then if they sell and buy again (as they will unless they die) they will pay the higher price and lose all their initial savings. In the end only those who buy at higher rates and don't sell before they go down and up again will save very much, the rest will cash it in as soon as they sell as they will buy on the new market and pay far more than they would have had house prices not risen.

This leads to the directly link second illusion which I already wrote about here specifically. To recap, no one who lives in their house (as opposed to rents another or more to others) gains from price rises, as it costs them more initially (inflation, and on your greatest ever purchase), and then again if it goes up as 10% of £100,000 is half as much as of £200,000, so the cash difference in trading up becomes wider and wider as the percentage rises, making improvements harder and harder as a direct result. House price rises are pure inflation with no benefits to anyone, any more than your gas or food prices going up. Just because they are an increasing asset, unlike nearly all others which depreciate over time, they are not an investment, as they are not liquid. If you sell up you will always need to live somewhere, and therefore you can never convert your asset or profit on it to cash as unless you want to downsize, which the majority of people will not until retirement possibly, then your standard of living will permanently fall if you have a cheaper house for more cash. There's no way round it, moving abroad means their assets tend to rise more slowly (Britain has some of the highest rises worldwide), so you will probably never afford to move back as the difference will be too much to fill if you wanted to.

The economic are the easiest to illustrate, but to one extent or another you can directly apply this formula to many more things, and others indirectly. Take socialism. This is a less obvious and direct illusion, but one young people tend to see as 'caring' and 'inclusive' etc., mainly as they have probably never lived under it, and they don't realise where all that money has come from to care for the poor. So while their parents work hard and find money to look after them well, they do not realise were this socialism in operation then if their parents are doing well through years of effort, they would lose maybe half their money or more. It would go to pay for everyone else, not who you wanted it to go to, or necessarily even knowing where it was going, it would simply be returned to the state, which socialism believes is above the individual, as a collective, and knows better how to spend its money (note, no longer 'your' money) than you do. Yes, you may get free health care and cheap travel, but it may be at the expense of petrol costs which are taxed to subsidise public transport, as again the money has to come from somewhere, and under socialism it comes from those who are worth the most as they have the most to take away. So like the low interest rates, unless you are one of the group of people who benefit from socialism, basically the unfortunates and long or short term unemployed or sick, you will make a net loss. And your wealth will be capped. If you end up paying 70% or more of the earnings above it then it will barely make any difference per extra (marginal) hour worked after that point, and as a result even the economy stops growing as after 50% it will, as people will work less, cheat and leave the country, while lower rates people will be happy to work and pay fairly.

So socialism looks wonderful to most children who see things as simple and black and white, and do not see beneath the surface yet, but in fact only works with very poor countries who can only get better, once they become fairly affluent then they can still support those unable to look after themselves under capitalism as the economy has grown enough to afford it.

Now imagine CO2 was either not rising or not considered harmful, no possible reason would exist for wind, solar and wood power as they don't work. Or electric cars. Don't take my word for it, look around for the figures. They don't deliver. People would be burning coal which is cheap, abundant, and now scrubbed clean before it leaves the chimney. Oil would not be restricted from drilling or transporting (Obama is blocking the Keystone pipe which would make oil far easier to transport from Canada), and the market would operate, with scientists and inventors working on thorium, fusion, magnet motors and hydrogen power in their own time, which will all be literally harmless (unlike nuclear) and far cheaper than fossil fuel, but need decades to develop commercially.

So instead they create illusory machines which do nothing. A wind turbine cannot produce any more energy than the wind chooses to produce at that time, cannot be stored for later and cannot be used when not required. And they draw power. Solar are known to be capable of a little more eventually, but no more than a known conversion limit. Either way the light is 25 times weaker on the surface than above the atmosphere, and known to be too diffuse for home use rather than small appliances only. And although you can store the power during the day you won't get much spare for overnight, you'd need to spend more than the cost of the house to do it just in the summer. But in the winter they fail as the light is far weaker and only for a few usable hours, so cannot deliver. Imagine using wind and solar for a hospital for a few days if you want a proper picture of it. I already mentioned electric cars, which besides taking hours to recharge and don't have interchangeable batteries as an alternative, cannot be charged if they run out away from a point. And as they draw power for traction and electrical equipment from the same source then you simply can't tell how long it can last per journey, as if it gets cold, dark or wet the power drain will increase drastically. That is the essential nature of an electric car, and besides vastly complicated and expensive hybrids, a purely electrical vehicle, like a wind farm, can never deliver the whole time. Yes, if you never drive very far you may get away with it if you charge it each night, but what use is a car you can't use beyond local trips?

If you think of any more things which look good on the surface but are the exact opposite then please add them in the comments and I will add them here. It isn't too different from people playing the shell game in the street, who put a ball under one of three shells and you watch and bet the one it's under. Of course your chance of winning is only 1/3 if it's a fair game, but they cheat to make it almost zero, but get accomplices to pretend to play and win and suck people in. Once they realise then the money's gone and it's too late. Don't be like those tourists, learn from other's mistakes or experiences before they catch you out.

While our elders and betters attempt to silence us by throwing the 97/99/101% (depending what direction the wind is blowing at the time) consensus figure at us about man made global warming, I have already listed some other times in the past where scientists nearly all agreed (but not quite) on any assumption they didn't quite know enough on but gave the public impression they did. That is how science works. If they don't know for sure, it doesn't always stop them pretending, or even believing genuinely in some cases they do. Inevitably the reality turns up sooner or later, no one gets sacked or punished, and they all quietly accept the new material and move on.

In fact, the only reason they ever used consensus was because they couldn't prove the theory for certain, as when they can it's clear to everyone as well as the scientists and can be tested directly.

Here are the lists of quotes about the climate from the 70s (which today's believers deny the existence of), agreeing on a quite different phenomenon which, like the one in the 90s soon after, didn't happen.

Bear in mind CO2 was pretty darn high back then as well, and they didn't factor that in as a warming factor.

By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half..." Life magazine, January 1970.
Get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters--the worst may be yet to come. That's the long-long-range weather forecast being given out by "climatologists." the people who study very long-term world weather trends…. Washington Post January 11, 1970
Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor "...the planet will cool, the water vapor... will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born," Newsweek magazine, January 26, 1970.

In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. -- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)
"Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind. We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation," - Barry Commoner Washington University Earth Day 1970
"(By 1995) somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct." Sen. Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look magazine, April 1970.
“By the year 2000...the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America and Australia, will be in famine,” Peter Gunter, North Texas State University, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.
Convection in the Antarctic Ice Sheet Leading to a Surge of the Ice Sheet and Possibly to a New Ice Age. – Science 1970
“In the next 50 years fine dust that humans discharge into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuel will screen out so much of the sun's rays that the Earth's average temperature could fall by six degrees. Sustained emissions over five to 10 years, could be sufficient to trigger an ice age." – Washington Post - July 9, 1971
"By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Paul Ehrlich 1971
New Ice Age Coming---It's Already Getting Colder. Some midsummer day, perhaps not too far in the future, a hard, killing frost will sweep down on the wheat fields of Saskatchewan, the Dakotas and the Russian steppes…..Los Angles Times Oct 24, 1971